Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Shafiuddin Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Asif Kalim, the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are the pre-emptors who have challenged the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 12754 of 1999, whereby the order dated 20.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in Case No. 460 of 1993, allowing the claim of pre-emption, was set-aside and it was ordered that the consequences of quashing of the order would follow. 3. It appears from the order impugned that in the writ petition filed by the purchasers (respondent herein), a status quo order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 05.03.2001. Despite the said interim order of 05.03.2001 referred to above, the land was reconveyed to the appellants/pre-emptors with execution of sale deed on 09.05.2003, invoking Clause (iii) of sub- section (3) of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 4. The learned Single Judge, after having perused the entire documents, found that the purchasers were never served with the notice 5. On finding that the land in question was re-conveyed to the appellants/pre-emptors during the period when the order of status quo was operative, the learned Single Judge quashed the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue as the principles of natural justice had been put on hold. 6. We have no reasons to interfere with the order even though the appellant/pre-emptors have paid for the land to the vendors. 7. Since the order impugned specifically provides that the consequences of quashing of the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue shall follow, it is for the appellants to approach the authorities for the return of the money. 8. The appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.